PARRADO v. U.S.

Petitioner Freddie Parrado, acting pro se, moves for a
reduction of his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In the
alternative Parrado claims that his guilty plea was neither
knowingly nor voluntarily entered. For the following reasons,
Parrado's petition is denied.

BACKGROUND

A. Factual and Procedural History

On July 17, 1996, the Grand Jury filed an indictment, charging
Parrado with distributing and possessing with intent to
distribute five kilograms and more of mixtures and substances
containing a detectable amount of cocaine in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 846. Thereafter, Parrado waived formal indictment, and
on July 2, 1997, the government issued a superceding information
S2 96 Cr. 505(PKL) (the "Information") charging him with the
same violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.

On June 30, 1997, Parrado entered into a plea agreement with
the government. See Plea Agreement of Freddie Parrado, June
30, 1997 (the "Plea Agreement"). The plea agreement stipulated
that he distributed and possessed with intent to distribute at
least 15 but less than 50 kilograms of cocaine. See Plea
Agreement at 2. Further, the plea agreement established that his
base offense level was 34 under the Federal Sentencing
Guidelines (the "Sentencing Guidelines"). See id. Due to
Parrado's cooperation, however, the parties stipulated to
reducing the base offense level to 31. See id. at 2-3. His
criminal history included seven points and a rating of IV under
the Sentencing Guidelines. See id. at 3. The parties
stipulated that his sentencing range was 151 to 188 months. See
id. at 4.

Parrado claims that his sentence is invalid under the new rule
of Apprendi v. New Jersey because the judge rather than the
jury determined the quantity of narcotics involved. See
530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Parrado also
attempts to rely on Jones v. United States, 530 U.S. 1271, 120
S.Ct. 2739, 147 L.Ed.2d 1002 (2000). See Parrado's Reply to
The Government's Memorandum In Opposition to Parrado's § 2255
Motion ("Parrado's Reply"). Further, Parrado asserts that he
pleaded guilty and was "convicted of 5 kilos; not the 15 to 50
that he was sentenced for." Parrado's Reply at 7. In the
alternative, petitioner alleges that his guilty plea was not
voluntary or knowing. See id. at 4.

DISCUSSION

I. Timeliness of the Petition

Section 2255 sets forth the following time restrictions:

A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion
under this section. The limitation period shall ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.